G.R. Nos.

168992-93 May 21, 2009

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM,
MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM,
MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J .:
The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Monina P. Lim (petitioner) seeking to set aside the
Decision
1
dated 15 September 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 22 (trial
court), in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259, which dismissed without prejudice the
consolidated petitions for adoption of Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim.
The Facts
The following facts are undisputed. Petitioner is an optometrist by profession. On 23 June 1974, she
married Primo Lim (Lim). They were childless. Minor children, whose parents were unknown, were
entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban (Ayuban). Being so eager to have a child of their own,
petitioner and Lim registered the children to make it appear that they were the childrens parents.
The children
2
were named Michelle P. Lim (Michelle) and Michael Jude P. Lim (Michael). Michelle
was barely eleven days old when brought to the clinic of petitioner. She was born on 15 March
1977.
3
Michael was 11 days old when Ayuban brought him to petitioners clinic. His date of birth is 1
August 1983.
4

The spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were their own. They sent the children to
exclusive schools. They used the surname "Lim" in all their school records and documents.
Unfortunately, on 28 November 1998, Lim died. On 27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel
Olario (Olario), an American citizen.
Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty
5
given under Republic
Act No. 8552
6
(RA 8552) to those individuals who simulated the birth of a child. Thus, on 24 April
2002, petitioner filed separate petitions for the adoption of Michelle and Michael before the trial court
docketed as SPL PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259, respectively. At the time of the filing of the
petitions for adoption, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was 18 years
and seven months old.
Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the adoption as evidenced by their Affidavits of
Consent.
7
Michael also gave his consent to his adoption as shown in his Affidavit of
Consent.
8
Petitioners husband Olario likewise executed an Affidavit of Consent
9
for the adoption of
Michelle and Michael.
In the Certification issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Michelle
was considered as an abandoned child and the whereabouts of her natural parents were
unknown.
10
The DSWD issued a similar Certification for Michael.
11

The Ruling of the Trial Court
On 15 September 2004, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the petitions. The trial court
ruled that since petitioner had remarried, petitioner should have filed the petition jointly with her new
husband. The trial court ruled that joint adoption by the husband and the wife is mandatory citing
Section 7(c), Article III of RA 8552 and Article 185 of the Family Code.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision but the motion was denied in the Order
dated 16 June 2005. In denying the motion, the trial court ruled that petitioner did not fall under any
of the exceptions under Section 7(c), Article III of RA 8552. Petitioners argument that mere consent
of her husband would suffice was untenable because, under the law, there are additional
requirements, such as residency and certification of his qualification, which the husband, who was
not even made a party in this case, must comply.
As to the argument that the adoptees are already emancipated and joint adoption is merely for the
joint exercise of parental authority, the trial court ruled that joint adoption is not only for the purpose
of exercising parental authority because an emancipated child acquires certain rights from his
parents and assumes certain obligations and responsibilities.
Hence, the present petition.
Issue
Petitioner appealed directly to this Court raising the sole issue of whether or not petitioner, who has
remarried, can singly adopt.
The Courts Ruling
Petitioner contends that the rule on joint adoption must be relaxed because it is the duty of the court
and the State to protect the paramount interest and welfare of the child to be adopted. Petitioner
argues that the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" is not applicable to adoption cases. She argues that
joint parental authority is not necessary in this case since, at the time the petitions were filed,
Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was already 18 years of age. Parental
authority is not anymore necessary since they have been emancipated having attained the age of
majority.
We deny the petition.
J oint Adoption by Husband and Wife
It is undisputed that, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner had already
remarried. She filed the petitions by herself, without being joined by her husband Olario. We have no
other recourse but to affirm the trial courts decision denying the petitions for adoption. Dura lex sed
lex. The law is explicit. Section 7, Article III of RA 8552 reads:
SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. - The following may adopt:
(a) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of
good moral character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude,
emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years
older than the adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his/her children in
keeping with the means of the family. The requirement of sixteen (16) year difference
between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the
biological parent of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptees parent;
(b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino
nationals: Provided, That his/her country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the
Philippines, that he/she has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous
years prior to the filing of the application for adoption and maintains such residence until the
adoption decree is entered, that he/she has been certified by his/her diplomatic or consular
office or any appropriate government agency that he/she has the legal capacity to adopt in
his/her country, and that his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country as
his/her adopted son/daughter: Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and
certification of the aliens qualification to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the
following:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th)
degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her
spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the
Filipino spouses; or
(c) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and
clearance of his/her financial accountabilities.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided,
however, That the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.
In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the
other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses. (Emphasis supplied)
The use of the word "shall" in the above-quoted provision means that joint adoption by the husband
and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept of joint parental authority over the
child which is the ideal situation. As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate
child, it is but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony between
the spouses.
12

The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity. Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions
for adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the petitions for adoption were filed only by
petitioner herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial court was correct in denying the
petitions for adoption on this ground.
Neither does petitioner fall under any of the three exceptions enumerated in Section 7. First, the
children to be adopted are not the legitimate children of petitioner or of her husband Olario. Second,
the children are not the illegitimate children of petitioner. And third, petitioner and Olario are not
legally separated from each other.
The fact that Olario gave his consent to the adoption as shown in his Affidavit of Consent does not
suffice. There are certain requirements that Olario must comply being an American citizen. He must
meet the qualifications set forth in Section 7 of RA 8552 such as: (1) he must prove that his country
has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines; (2) he must have been living in the
Philippines for at least three continuous years prior to the filing of the application for adoption; (3) he
must maintain such residency until the adoption decree is entered; (4) he has legal capacity to adopt
in his own country; and (5) the adoptee is allowed to enter the adopters country as the latters
adopted child. None of these qualifications were shown and proved during the trial.
These requirements on residency and certification of the aliens qualification to adopt cannot likewise
be waived pursuant to Section 7. The children or adoptees are not relatives within the fourth degree
of consanguinity or affinity of petitioner or of Olario. Neither are the adoptees the legitimate children
of petitioner.
Effects of Adoption
Petitioner contends that joint parental authority is not anymore necessary since the children have
been emancipated having reached the age of majority. This is untenable.
Parental authority includes caring for and rearing the children for civic consciousness and efficiency
and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being.
13
The father and
the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children.
14
Even
the remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority over the children, unless
the court appoints another person to be the guardian of the person or property of the children.
15

It is true that when the child reaches the age of emancipation that is, when he attains the age of
majority or 18 years of age
16
emancipation terminates parental authority over the person and
property of the child, who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life.
17
However,
parental authority is merely just one of the effects of legal adoption. Article V of RA 8552 enumerates
the effects of adoption, thus:
ARTICLE V
EFFECTS OF ADOPTION
SEC. 16. Parental Authority. - Except in cases where the biological parent is the spouse of the
adopter, all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the
same shall then be vested on the adopter(s).
SEC. 17. Legitimacy. - The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the
adopter(s) for all intents and purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations
provided by law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of any kind. To this
end, the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the family.
SEC. 18. Succession. - In legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the adoptee shall have
reciprocal rights of succession without distinction from legitimate filiation. However, if the adoptee
and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on testamentary succession shall govern.
Adoption has, thus, the following effects: (1) sever all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and
the adoptee, except when the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter; (2) deem the adoptee
as a legitimate child of the adopter; and (3) give adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and
obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child, including but not limited to: (i) the right of
the adopter to choose the name the child is to be known; and (ii) the right of the adopter and
adoptee to be legal and compulsory heirs of each other.
18
Therefore, even if emancipation
terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still considered a legitimate child of the adopter with all
the rights
19
of a legitimate child such as: (1) to bear the surname of the father and the mother; (2) to
receive support from their parents; and (3) to be entitled to the legitime and other successional
rights. Conversely, the adoptive parents shall, with respect to the adopted child, enjoy all the benefits
to which biological parents are entitled
20
such as support
21
and successional rights.
22

We are mindful of the fact that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interests and
welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration. They are designed to provide homes, parental
care and education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of
society and family, as well as to allow childless couples or persons to experience the joys of
parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their
natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill
these noble and compassionate objectives of the law.
23
But, as we have ruled inRepublic v.
Vergara:
24

We are not unmindful of the main purpose of adoption statutes, which is the promotion of the welfare
of the children. Accordingly, the law should be construed liberally, in a manner that will sustain rather
than defeat said purpose. The law must also be applied with compassion, understanding and less
severity in view of the fact that it is intended to provide homes, love, care and education for less
fortunate children. Regrettably, the Court is not in a position to affirm the trial courts decision
favoring adoption in the case at bar, for the law is clear and it cannot be modified without
violating the proscription against judicial legislation. Until such time however, that the law on
the matter is amended, we cannot sustain the respondent-spouses petition for adoption. (Emphasis
supplied)1avvphi1.zw+
Petitioner, being married at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, should have jointly filed the
petitions with her husband. We cannot make our own legislation to suit petitioner.
Petitioner, in her Memorandum, insists that subsequent events would show that joint adoption could
no longer be possible because Olario has filed a case for dissolution of his marriage to petitioner in
the Los Angeles Superior Court.
We disagree. The filing of a case for dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and Olario is of
no moment. It is not equivalent to a decree of dissolution of marriage. Until and unless there is a
judicial decree for the dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and Olario, the marriage still
subsists. That being the case, joint adoption by the husband and the wife is required. We reiterate
our ruling above that since, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner was married to
Olario, joint adoption is mandatory.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 15 September 2004 of the
Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 22 in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259.
Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Facts: The petitioner Monina P. Lim, married to Primo Lim (Lim) on 23 June 1974 were childless.
Financially stable optometrist and wanted a child of their own, petitioner and Lim made Michelle P.
Lim (Michelle) and Michael Jude P. Lim (Michael) appear they were the parents. Michelle was born
March 15, 1977 and was brought to the petitioner barely 11 days old while Michael was born August
1, 1983 and was 11 days old. Their parents are unknown and the minor children were entrusted to
them by Lucia Ayuban (Ayuban).
From there on the children was raised and cared for as if they were their own carrying the surname
Lim. On November 28, 1998 Lim died and petitioner married Angel Olario (Olario) dated
December 27, 2000. He is an American citizen.
Availing the amnesty given under Republic Act No. 8552 (RA 8552) to those individuals who
simulated the birth of a child, the petitioner decided to adopt the children on April 24, 2002. Filing
separate petitions for adoption of Michelle who was 25 years old and already married while Michael
was 18 years and seven months old. On the trial court docketed as SPL PROC. Case Nos. 1258
and 1259, respectively.
Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the adoption as evidenced by their Affidavits of
Consent. Michael also gave his consent to his adoption as shown in his Affidavit of Consent.
Petitioners husband Olario likewise executed an Affidavit of Consent for the adoption of Michelle
and Michael.
In the Certification issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Michelle
and Michael was considered as an abandoned child and the whereabouts of her natural parents
were unknown.
The trial Court however, denied their petition for adoption contending that joint adoption is necessary
because the petitioner remarried.
Issue: Whether or not joint adoption is necessary as compared to the contention of the petitioner
that the mere consent of her husband is only needed.
Held: Yes. Joint adoption is necessary.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided,
however, That the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.
In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the
other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.
The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity. Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions
for adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the petitions for adoption were filed only by
petitioner herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial court was correct in denying the
petitions for adoption on this ground.